The reading and the lecture both discuss about whether university professors should participate in some TV shows for educational purposes. While the article claims that such appearances have substantial benefits, the lecturer refutes this, stating that such activities have no practical values to society.
First of all, the author argues that by appearing on the TV, the professors will expand their reputations as experts in academic fields to a broader range of audience. The author believes that this will help promote the values of the professors as scholars. The lecturer opposes this idea. She suggests that these professors who make appearances on the TV will receive bad reputations among their peers since the other professors will regard them as not being serious with researching. As a result, these professors will not be invited to important conferences and meetings where some important academic subjects are discussed, and this is a tremendous advantage to these professors.
Secondly, the author states that universities' reputations will also be enhanced if their professors take part in the TV shows. It is mentioned that this will give the universities more opportunities to receive donations and also applications from talented students. However, the lecturer posits such activities will take up a lot of time of the professors as they have to spend time on preparing for their presentations, travelling, and sometimes making up for the shootings. She argues that these professors will then be unable to meet up with their students and attend to the school business.
Finally, the author claims that the public also benefit from TV appearances made by university professors. It is suggested that the audience will have access to high-quality sources of information if the professors make appearances on the educational TV programs. The lecturer rebuts this idea. She notes that the majority of TV shows are made for commercial purposes, not educational, so these shows only have a academic title a while, their content is often shallow. In addition, she suggests what the information professors participating in these programs provide is no different from a regular TV reporter.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 412, Rule ID: EN_A_VS_AN
Message: Use 'an' instead of 'a' if the following word starts with a vowel sound, e.g. 'an article', 'an hour'
Suggestion: an
...t educational, so these shows only have a academic title a while, their content i...
^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, first, however, if, second, secondly, so, then, while, in addition, as a result, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 11.0 10.4613686534 105% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 5.04856512141 218% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 6.0 7.30242825607 82% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 12.0772626932 108% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 22.412803532 165% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 38.0 30.3222958057 125% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1862.0 1373.03311258 136% => OK
No of words: 346.0 270.72406181 128% => OK
Chars per words: 5.38150289017 5.08290768461 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.31289638616 4.04702891845 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.99343284237 2.5805825403 116% => OK
Unique words: 169.0 145.348785872 116% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.488439306358 0.540411800872 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 575.1 419.366225166 137% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.55342163355 109% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 3.25607064018 246% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 10.0 8.23620309051 121% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 1.25165562914 160% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 2.5761589404 39% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 13.0662251656 122% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 21.2450331126 99% => OK
Sentence length SD: 51.226824028 49.2860985944 104% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.375 110.228320801 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.625 21.698381199 100% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.0625 7.06452816374 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.09492273731 98% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 4.19205298013 24% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 5.0 4.33554083885 115% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 4.45695364238 90% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.27373068433 164% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.175834751361 0.272083759551 65% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0678689248614 0.0996497079465 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0401152215283 0.0662205650399 61% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.11330802389 0.162205337803 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.041668257031 0.0443174109184 94% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 13.3589403974 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 53.8541721854 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 5.55761589404 158% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 11.0289183223 115% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.92 12.2367328918 114% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.74 8.42419426049 104% => OK
difficult_words: 89.0 63.6247240618 140% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 10.7273730684 79% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 10.498013245 99% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.2008830022 80% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Write the essay in 20 minutes.
Rates: 73.3333333333 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 22.0 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.